Alameddine v Glenworth Valley Horse Riding Pty Ltd [2015] NSWCA 219

0
Foundations of Business Law

1
Part-A
Answer-1
The Court of Appeal gave the judgement in the case of Alameddine v
Glenworth Valley Horse Riding Pty Ltd [2015] NSWCA 219. Prior to the final
decision of the Court of Appeal, this case was entertained by the District Court in
NSW. In this judgment, the court agreed with the arguments of the respondent. This
decision was overturned in the appeal. Glenworth Valley Horse Riding Pty Ltd was
the respondent in this case, and Alameddine was the appellant (the claimant). The
provisions given under Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW) and the Competition and
Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) are relevant in this context.
Answer-2
In this case, the claimant filed a civil suit against the respondent. This suit was
filed for the breach of contract law, tort law and Australian Consumer Law. The
claimant suffered injuries, and he filed a suit against the defendant to recover damages
which were a result of the non-economic loss. In this case, section 16 of Civil
Liability Act was used by the claimant in order to calculate the damages. The
respondent used the defence of the exclusion clause included in the contract which
was signed by the mother of the claimant. Furthermore, the claimant claimed defences
under section 5L, 5M and 5N by the Civil Liability Act. The onus of proof was on the
claimant to prove that the injury is caused due to negligence of the respondent and the
exclusion clause and the defences under section 5L, 5M and 5N did not apply in this
case (Madden, 2018).
Answer-3
The issue, in this case, was that whether the respondent is liable for the injury
suffered by the claimant under the Competition and Consumer Act. This issue was
linked to the fact that whether the respondent can rely on the exclusion clause was
which included in the contract that was signed by the mother of the claimant since he
was an infant. While visiting the recreational facility of the respondent, the appellant

2
was riding a quad bike. The contract which was signed by the claimant’s mother
before entering the facility includes the exclusion clause and quad biking was written
as a dangerous recreational activity in the contract (Austlii, 2015). While riding the
quad bike, the instructor increased the speed which forced the appellant to increase his
speed as well which leads to the accident. Therefore, the main issue was linked with
whether or not the respondent can be held liable for the injuries suffered by the
claimant.
Answer-4
The appellant argued that the respondent should be held liable for negligence.
A duty which is expected for a reasonable person was not maintained in this case
which leads to injuries of the claimant. The appellant argued that the exclusion clause
contained in the contract which was signed by the mother of the appellant was not
valid. It was argued that the instructed increased the speed of the bike which forced
the appellant to increase the speed as well; therefore, the warning signs put inside the
riding area did not limit the liability of the defendant. The appellant claimed remedies
for violation of his consumer rights given under section 60 and 61 of the Competition
and Consumer Act in relation to guarantees given to customers for supply of services
(Legislation, n.d.).
Answer-5
This judgement is relevant to understand the doctrine of precedent based on the
decision of the court. Moreover, the hierarchy of Australian courts is also illustrated in
this case. The doctrine of precedent provides that smaller courts have to follow the
judgement of higher courts given in prior cases when the cases have similar facts. The
doctrine of precedent was followed by the District Court while providing its decisions
because it was influenced by the judgement of Calin v The Greater Union
Organisation Pty Ltd [1991] HCA 23 which is a prior judgement given by a higher
court. As per the judgement given in the prior case, it was provided by the District
Court that this suit was not filed for the breach of contractual terms rather than
claimant was focused on the rights which were infringed in the common law (Jade,
2015). While determining whether quad biking is a ‘dangerous recreational activity’

3
or not, the court relied on the prior judgement of Holroyd City Council v Zaiter [2014]
NSWCA 109. The definition of ‘an obvious risk’ was determined based on the
judgement of Lormine Pty Ltd v Zuereb [2006] NSWCA 200. It shows the hierarchy
of the courts in Australia because the District Court was bound by the prior
judgements given by higher courts in similar cases. Lastly, prior decision of the
smaller court was overruled in the appeal which illustrates the hierarchy of the
Australian courts.
Answer-6
The treatment given by this decision to the principle of exclusion of liability
clauses affect businesses operating in Australia in an adverse manner. It has become
common for companies to include exclusion clauses in their standard goods and
services contracts. These clauses limit the remedies awarded to customers under the
Australian Consumer Law and the Civil Liability Act. However, this is not the case
anymore, especially after the judgement of this case. Now, a business will not be able
to use the exclusion clause as a tool to limit the liability which arises due to violation
of consumer rights. The customers who sign the contract which contains an exclusion
clause are precluded from these contracts, except in strict circumstances in which
personal injuries are suffered by a party as a result of reckless conduct (Hall&Wilcox,
2015). The businesses operating in Australia can only rely on defences given under
section 5M and 5N of the Civil Liability Act if they violate any consumer rights.
Therefore, this judgement has an adverse impact on the businesses operating in
Australia.
Answer-7
I believe that the outcome of this case is fair because it focuses on
strengthening the provisions which protect the rights of customers. Generally,
corporations are able to eliminate their liability from a contract for goods and services
by including an exclusion clause. This principle allows them to easily violate the
rights of customers without facing any legal consequences. The important business
law lessons which I learned after reading this case was the importance of customer
rights. Organisations cannot violate these rights by relying on the provision of